Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Clause 4 - Electoral identity card

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 37, in page 4, line 38, at end insert— 
 `(4) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary election rules), in rule 37(1E) (specified documents), leave out sub-paragraphs (c) to (g). 
 (5) Subsection 4 shall come into force 18 months after the coming into force of the rest of this section.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: New clause 1—Voters to produce specified documents—
 `(1) The Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c. 2) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 1 (voters to produce specified documents) subsection (2), at the end of inserted sub-paragraph (1E)(a), there is inserted ``and the requirement under this rule shall be satisfied by the production of the plastic photographic card which either is, or forms the counterpart of, a licence to drive a motor vehicle.'' 
 (3) In section 1 (voters to produce specified documents) subsection (2), at the end of inserted sub-paragrpah (1E)(d), there is inserted— 
 ``(da) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development.''.'. 
New clause 6—Voters: specified documents— 
 `(1) From 1st April 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to elections in Northern Ireland, imported into schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c.2), is amended in accordance with sub-section (2). 
 (2) Sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) are omitted and the following are inserted: 
 ``(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle; 
 (b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Government of the Republic of Ireland; 
 (c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass isued by the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development; 
 (d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act.''.'.

Lembit Öpik: You will understand, Mr. Amess, if my speech this morning and my speech now seem rather disjointed, but there have been several hours in between.
 I have only one point. For the reasons that we discussed earlier, a timetable is a form of insurance policy. Will the Minister accept in principle that the Government should revisit the issue? Even if they do not accept the timetable that I and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) proposed, something specific, a backstop, should assure us that there will come a point, defined in legislation, after which it will not be acceptable to vote without photographic identification. Without that, the Minister risks undermining the effectiveness of the entire Bill. 
 The Minister may not have grasped that we are trying to help him. As things stand, there is no clear deadline, and he risks marching naked into the conference chamber with people who will do everything they can to prevent the measure from going through. I hope that the Minister will at least consider introducing a backstop. If not, we shall have to vote on it. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Disabled voters

Eddie McGrady: Amendment No. 25 is in my name, but with your permission, Mr. Amess, and that of the Committee, I shall not move it, for the reasons that I gave when we discussed amendment No. 18.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: I want to make the case for consolidation of the legislation. I am extremely grateful that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) did not move his amendment, because I did not understand its effect. Having struggled through the amendment and the legislation, I found it simply impossible as a lay reader to work it out. I now have considerable sympathy with the officials of the Northern Ireland Office. I now have considerable sympathy with the officials of the Northern Ireland Office, who have to make their way through the legislation, drawing on many different sources on electoral law in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to understand for whom subsection (3) is meant and to what it applies; the amendments make it even more delphic. I ask the Minister a simple question on consolidation. When can we expect the Government to produce a consolidated Bill that will make the life of the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland and all the officials that work with him, and indeed his own officials, that much simpler?

Peter Robinson: I support the hon. Member for Reigate on the issue of consolidation. I referred to it earlier in the debate but the hon. Gentleman's point underlines it once more for the Minister. I am sure that members of the Committee sought to provide themselves with all the legislation relating to the amendments and to the subject generally. If they were successful in doing so, they will have piles beside them of the same depth as I do beside me.
 The amount of legislation relating to the subject was brought home to me most tellingly when I went to the Public Bill Office, which provides hon. Members with a great service by putting our political thoughts into legal words. When I met the Minister, during the consultation period on the Bill, he told me that one of my first amendments, which had been tabled with the assistance of the legal experts in the Public Bill Office, sought to amend a clause that had been repealed. That indicates the murky depths of the many different pieces of legislation related to the issue—some went through statutory instrument Committees, some went through by Order in Council, some by primary legislation in the House and others by primary legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly. 
 It was said earlier that the chief electoral officer would find it helpful if there could be some consolidation. I strongly support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Reigate. Although the Minister cannot give us the precise date, I hope that he will give us an indication of the time span he has in mind for providing some consolidation, though I suspect that it will be at United Kingdom level rather than Northern Ireland level.

Des Browne: For completeness, I should point out that the proposed amendment that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I discussed at our meeting amended a piece of legislation that had not only been repealed but which never applied to Northern Ireland in the first place.
 I am sure that members of the Committee will understand that I have sympathy for the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Reigate and for Belfast, East and others. I have endeavoured, with the assistance of my officials—to whom I cannot pay high enough tribute; their expertise and help have made my life considerably easier—to assist members of the Committee. With their help, I have been able to help members of the Committee who asked for help in understanding the Bill, but even then it is a difficult and complex task. 
 I know from my professional days as an advocate in Scotland that election law throughout the United Kingdom is difficult and complex. On one occasion I was instructed by a London solicitor about an election petition in Scotland. He was the only person I had ever met who had a dog-eared version of the best textbook on the subject. Among the officials who instruct me there may be another person who has a dog-eared version of that textbook, but it is a fairly specialised subject. 
 I am sorry that I cannot tell the Committee today when I shall be able to turn my mind to the matter. As I am sure hon. Members will understand, in the approximately four months that I have been a Minister with responsibility for electoral law in Northern Ireland I have concentrated on tackling fraud, and we have made significant progress. I cannot say when electoral law will be consolidated, but hon. Members can be assured that I am aware of the issue. That is the best assurance that I can give at this stage.

Crispin Blunt: I fear that ultimately we shall have to rely on the Minister's good intentions. We should have hope, because it is three and a half years since the Select Committee on which he sat presented its recommendations on the subject, and a mere four months into his tenure as a Minister in the Department he has introduced the Bill. We should expect by the end of the parliamentary year to be considering—

Des Browne: I am reminded that it was three weeks before the Bill was introduced, but I cannot take credit for that entirely. My predecessor put considerable effort into the Bill, and we should pay tribute to the work that he did in driving the issue forward.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister is characteristically generous. I realise that the matter was referred to on Second Reading, but on behalf of the Opposition I acknowledge in Committee the enormous contribution of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), which enabled the new Minister to introduce the Bill in the blisteringly quick time of three weeks. The matter is important, and the fact has been recorded in Committee. The chief electoral officer made a formal request to the Minister. If the Minister can introduce Bills in three weeks, with a bit of luck the consolidation should be out of the way by Christmas.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Offences

Des Browne: I beg to move Government amendment No. 49, in page 5, line 25, after 'made', insert 'to him'.
 My contribution on the amendment will be short. The amendment is not essential, but is desirable. It is a tidying-up amendment that makes proposed new subsection (2) of proposed new section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as inserted by the clause consistent with proposed new subsection (1).

Crispin Blunt: The Minister says that the amendment is not essential but is desirable. I tried to follow him. My notes say, ``What is the effect of this?''. I am still none the wiser. That may be my fault, but I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the consequences of adding ``to him''.

Des Browne: The consequence of adding ``to him'' is that instead of the phrase ``application made'', we have the phrase ``application made to him''. I hope that that is clear enough.
 Amendment agreed to.

Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 32, at end add—
 `13 Multiple registration`(1)
 Any person who—
(a) registers as an elector in more than one parliamentary constituency; or
(b) registers as an elector in more than one local government area,
is guilty of an offence.
 (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,
or to both.'.

David Amess: With this we may take the following amendments:
 No. 9, in page 5, line 32, at end add— 
 `13 Multiple registration`(1) 
 Any person who— 
 (a) registers as an elector in more than one parliamentary constituency; or 
 (b) registers as an elector in more than one local government area, 
 is guilty of an offence. 
No. 11, in title, line 9, leave out 
`in relation to voters with disabilities'. 
New clause 4—Multiple voting at local government elections— 
 (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to— 
 (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or 
 (b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, 
 or to both 
New clause 8—Registration: notification of multiple voting— 
 `(1) In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass) there is inserted— 
 ``(5A). The information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purposes of a canvass in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered.'' 
 (2) In section 10A (maintenance of the registers: registration of electors) and in section 13A (alteration of registers) of the 1983 Act there is inserted— 
 ``( ). An application for registration in respect of an address in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered.'' 
 (3) Any person knowlingly giving false information in response to any requirement of this section is guilty of an offence with liability on summary conviction to— 
 (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or 
 (b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, 
 or to both.'.

Peter Robinson: I shall speak to all the amendments and new clauses standing in my name.
 We are dealing with two issues—multiple registration and multiple voting. There was both discussion and confusion about them on Second Reading. I was among the confused, but I deserve no punishment as it will soon be understood how such confusion arose. From correspondence and discussions with the Minister and his officials I have learnt that as a result of paragraph (9D) of schedule 9 of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962—Stormont legislation—Northern Irish electors were denied a vote in more than one electoral area in any local government election. People in the United Kingdom who lived in more than one residence in different district council areas could enjoy more than one vote. ``One man, one vote'' and other civil rights issues led to changes in Northern Ireland legislation. It was understood by the general public in Northern Ireland that—whether for parliamentary, European or council elections—they had only one vote. Those who wanted to happily went to the polls in every subsequent election and exercised their franchise on that basis. 
 That applied until the Minister got to his feet on Second Reading and we discovered that something different had happened. Although no one was aware of it at the time, it happened in 1987 when, in the Corridors of this House, in a statutory instruments Committee, the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 was passed. The fact that the franchise was being changed was not clearly stated on the legislation or in the explanatory notes. 
 If one researched further and examined the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, one would find that the matter was of such deep interest to the Committee that the Minister managed to sum it up in 24 sentences—about four minutes—and no sentences made any reference to the change in the franchise. The change clearly took place by inadvertence. If it had been done deliberately, more use of the sleight of hand would be expected. 
 When the issue arose on Second Reading, every Northern Ireland politician present—together with Members who do not represent a Northern Irish constituency but are interested in Northern Ireland matters—assumed that there was no multiple voting in Northern Ireland. Not only did the politicians think that, but when I canvassed opinion among the press corps, an erudite body of people, it was not aware of the change either. I have not consulted all the public, but the many that I have—who would have been happy to exercise a second vote had the opportunity been legally available—were unaware as well. When I spoke to the chief electoral officer and senior members of his staff, I found that the electoral office was also unaware. All its publicity and documentation from past elections made the same assumption—that one is entitled to vote only once in a local government election, however many residences one has. The backcloth against which this debate takes place has been painted. 
 This will be the first occasion on which the House has taken a decision on the issue based on consideration rather than inadvertence. I was told by the Minister's officials that, although it was considered by a statutory instruments Committee in 1987, there was a fuller debate in 1989 when it was subsumed into more substantial legislation. My research shows that there is no reference to the issue being dealt with anywhere in the Bill, the explanatory notes or, to the best of my knowledge—although I only managed to labour through the Second Reading and Committee stages—the 1989 proceedings. I hope that the Minister will accept that the change appeared without the Northern Ireland political or public strata being aware of it. 
 We should consider whether it is appropriate, in the circumstances not of 1987 or 1989 but of today or tomorrow, that a right exercised elsewhere in the United Kingdom should be exercised in Northern Ireland. In his correspondence to me, the Minister said that he did not see any reason for departing from the general principle that there should be no taxation without representation, and on that basis, I would be happy to stop taxation in Northern Ireland. However, on the assumption that the Minister believes that the argument is relevant, I will deal with it. The breach has already occurred between taxation and representation, and I will take my circumstances as an example. 
 I spend thousands of pounds every year paying rates to Belfast city council—I am sure that it uses them wisely—but I do not get a vote. If I had known what the Minister has taught us over the past few weeks, I would still not have a vote because, although I pay tax, it is on business premises. What is the distinction between my spending £3,000 a year on taxation and not getting a vote, and someone spending a couple of hundred pounds on taxation and then getting a vote? Equally, many thousands of people have the right to vote without contributing any taxation. There is no direct correlation between taxation and representation and if that is the best argument that the Minister can produce, he will not be able to convince me on the issue. 
 The Bill aims to deal with fraud, so I come back to a principle that I touched on earlier. The Minister has strengthened many of the weaknesses in the legislation dealing with electoral law. However, I have no doubt that those who are intent on defrauding the system will look for weaknesses in the new system. Certainly, if I were so disposed to equip my party or myself with fraudulent votes, that is the area that I would look at, as a result of the changes that will take place. 
 It will be significantly more difficult for people to vote as a result of personating others. I hope that the postal vote system will be tightened up considerably by the measure. However, some people will now be allowed to vote legally in more than one place, and there will be moves to put people on the election register in many different constituencies in Northern Ireland. That will affect district councils more than it will affect anything else, but multiple registration will occur and result in multiple voting, even in parliamentary elections, although not legally. 
 On that basis, many seats in Northern Ireland will change legitimately. Let us at least recognise that. They will change because, under our proportional representation system, one or two votes—even a fraction of a vote, at a later stage of a count—can determine which of two candidates will be successful. The fact is that students in Belfast who live in Fermanagh, Mid Ulster or Londonderry can now vote in city council elections because they have student quarters in the south Belfast area. They will have an impact on elections in that constituency.

Des Browne: And so they should.

Peter Robinson: That depends on one's view of the issue.
 I wish that the Minister had been around in those hot and heady days of the early 1960s when the principle of one man, one vote was being enunciated by all. Unionists were being beaten around the head because they were on the wrong side of the issue when the Conservative and Labour parties were both supporting the principle of one man, one vote and changes were taking place to deny those who could vote more than once because of the principle of no taxation without representation. I wish the Minister had been there to take our cause on board. 
 In the present circumstances, the Minister must recognise that that area will be exploited. In his communication of 12 July, which was sent to several hon. Members, he said that 
 ``Even if a postal vote is not used, there is clearly an advantage in being able to track and monitor those who register more than once, not least to act as a deterrent against wrongdoing.'' 
The measure proposed by the hon. Member for Reigate should be attractive to the Minister. I believe that I am interpreting its intention correctly when I say that all that is being sought is a requirement that, when filling out a registration form, the householder indicates whether he or any member of the household for which he is registering has registered at another address. That would provide the chief electoral officer and his staff with information that can be cross checked during any review of the election and clearly show whether someone has voted on more than one occasion. 
 I noted also that the White Paper ``Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland (CM 5080)'' recommended, in paragraphs 17 to 19, that there should be monitoring of multiple registration. If the need to monitor has been recognised in both the Minister's correspondence and the White Paper, I am sure that the Minister will not want to resist new clause 8. While some of the other amendments in my name are consequential, the two on multiple registration and voting will at least allow the Committee an opportunity that was denied to others in the past of considering this matter and taking a decision on the issue, having considered the merits of the case.

Crispin Blunt: The Committee should first register its thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast, East for bringing clarity to this area. Ominously, I see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) shaking his head. Perhaps it is not as clear as it now appears to me having had the benefit of the exposition from the hon. Member for Belfast, East. It is clarity that the Government must bring to this issue in Northern Ireland. It is right to accept that, following all the controversy in the 1960s about people being able to vote more than once—a controversy that was central to the civil rights movement and one of the issues that had to be rectified—people in Northern Ireland have been under the impression for the last 30 years, correctly for about 17 years of that period, that they were entitled to vote only once in an election.
 Now we have discovered, unless the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire corrects us again, that the position in 1987 was changed apparently by accident in this place—[Interruption.] Certainly if it was not changed by accident, it was changed with the electorate in Northern Ireland being wholly unaware of the consequences of the decision here. We are no doubt now going to learn that the hon. Gentleman was on that Committee that considered it.

Harry Barnes: The person who was not confused about the situation was the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Mr. Bradley. He gave the information to the Select Committee on which the hon. Member for Belfast, East served. The position should be generally known, at least to some hon. Members.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out and for drawing attention to the evidence of Mr. Pat Bradley to the Select Committee, and the Select Committee report itself. There is a case for what the hon. Member for Belfast, East wants to do to bring clarity, which is to outlaw multiple registration, and/or to outlaw multiple voting. That would make it perfectly clear that one could register only once and therefore vote only once or at least vote only once even if one were multiply registered.

Des Browne: There is, of course, another way to bring clarity to this and that is to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they have exactly the same rights as all other citizens of the United Kingdom who are of the age to vote.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. That is an option. We could leave electoral law in precisely the same condition, or we could choose to make electoral law precisely the same in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The trouble is that we are considering the Bill in the first place because of the exceptional circumstances under which politics and democracy must be operated in Northern Ireland. We could choose to make the position precisely analogous to that in Great Britain, but what is absent in Great Britain is a political movement that is determined to exploit every potential loophole in the law. On that basis—the reason why we are considering different legislation—the Minister's suggestion should be resisted, as was his conclusion in 1998.

Des Browne: There is a distinction between putting in checks and measures in relation to the exercise of the franchise—which are necessary in Northern Ireland given its particular circumstances—and denying people the right to vote that other people in the United Kingdom have. Albeit reluctantly, we are checking the identity of the voters, but no one has any less right to vote in Northern Ireland than he or she has in the rest of the United Kingdom. That they had in the past is no argument for such a position to be restored.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister because that is why I tabled new clause 8 and did not add my name to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. A perfectly good case can be made to allow the principle of where one can register to be the same in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister has advanced a good argument against following the route of the hon. Member for Belfast, East and outlawing such action, but we cannot then do nothing.
 The Minister will be only too well aware of the conclusion that he reached with other members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in 1998. At paragraph 24 on page xi of the Committee's conclusions, the hon. Gentleman stated: 
 ``We acknowledge that registration in more than one place is a useful right for students and others. Those who have a legitimate reason to register in two or more places should be allowed to do so, but should be under a duty to indicate that they are doing so and where the other registered addresses are.'' 
I could not agree more. New clause 8 is designed to achieve such an outcome. I look forward to the Minister's explanation as to why new clause 8 should be resisted, as I do to his explanation as to why, now that he is imprisoned within the Executive, his view has changed from what it was when he was a member of the Select Committee after he had given such detailed consideration to such matters.

Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how new clause 8 would provide the outcome referred to in the Select Committee's report? That would allow multiple registration, but there would be a duty on people to say where the multiple registration took place. My understanding of new clause 8 is that it would disallow multiple registration all together.

Crispin Blunt: That is not the intention behind new clause 8. It states under subsection (2):
 ``An application for registration in respect of an address in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered.'' 
If a person is already registered at one address and then decides to register at a second address, he must notify on the registration form that he is already registered elsewhere and where that is. If they did not, they would be guilty of an offence. I hope that that is clear. The provision would not make multiple registration an offence; it would make the second, third and fourth registrations an offence if someone failed to identify the addresses at which they had previously been registered. 
 That is how I understand the effect of new clause 8. I am grateful to see the Minister nodding, which means that, like the hon. Member for Belfast, East, I was right to rely on the expert advice of the Public Bill Office in putting my political intentions into legal language. I register my gratitude to the Clerk. 
 The Select Committee report made the case eloquently, and new clause 8 would give effect to its recommendation. I hope that the Government will not resist the new clause, because it constitutes an important way of identifying loopholes in the new system, as the hon. Gentleman has said.

Harry Barnes: I apologise for becoming confused between new clause 8 and amendment No. 8.
 The hon. Member for Belfast, East has explained his confusion as to how the matter arose in a statutory instruments Committee and was not then known in Northern Ireland. However, the situation should be known to several people in the Room, because the chief electoral officer, Mr. Bradley, submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs for its report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. 
 The minutes give the membership of the Committee, which included my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), the hon. Members for South Down and for Belfast, East, and me. Paragraph 2.2, entitled ``Multiple voting'', states: 
 ``A person may have more than one residence and thus may be registered at more than one address. Even so it is an offence (Section 61, the 1983 Act) to vote more than once in the same constituency, in more than one constituency at a general election or more than once in the same electoral area at a local government election or in more than one electoral area at such a local election.'' 
The Minister propounded that position on Second Reading. It was known by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, who is an assiduous attender at Select Committee meetings and examines the matters contained in the evidence.

Crispin Blunt: I have now read paragraph 2.2, and it appears to support the contention of the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the chief electoral officer was under the same illusion as to what was allowed as the rest of the population of Northern Ireland. On examination, that view turned out to be incorrect, following the 1987 statutory instrument that was mentioned. That is further evidence of the need for consolidation of legislation.

Harry Barnes: I have read out the paragraph, which stated:
 ``A person may have more than one residence and thus may be registered at more than one address.'' 
What is that but legitimate multiple registration? I refer not just to the evidence of the returning officer, but to points in the report to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East put his name.

Peter Robinson: The argument was never that someone could not validly register more than once; it was that they could not vote more than once. They could not vote more than once in parliamentary assembly, local government or European elections. I draw on the passage quoted by the hon. Gentleman to aid the argument that I have advanced: the chief electoral officer says that even though it is permissible to register at more than one address,
``it is an offence to vote more than once...in more than one electoral area at such a local election.''

Harry Barnes: The report states:
``in more than one constituency at a general election or more than once in the same electoral area at a local government election or in more than one electoral area at such a local election.'' 
That means that it is not legitimate to vote more than once in the same local government elections. However, local government elections in different areas of Northern Ireland are not ruled out as elections where it is possible to vote more than once. 
 I will explain the situation in the United Kingdom. I am entitled to be registered in North-East Derbyshire, where I live, and in Lambeth, London, where I have accommodation so that I can attend Parliament. I have not registered at both places, and a dispute exists over whether I am obliged to do so. I believe that single registration should be the general principle to which we all adhere. I can legitimately vote in North-East Derbyshire district council elections and in local government elections in London, even when they are held on the same day. That situation exists across Northern Ireland. However, if I had two registrations in North-East Derbyshire because I had two homes there, I would be allowed to vote only once. That is the case in Britain, including Northern Ireland, and it is known to the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland. 
 The situation was clearly understood by the Select Committee. Its report stated on page xi, paragraph 24: 
 ``The doubt over the accuracy of the Register raises the question whether multiple registration should continue as a right.'' 
That right is being challenged by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. It should have been understood by everybody who put their name to the report that multiple registration not only took place in Northern Ireland, but was allowed to operate in certain circumstances. The argument against multiple registration was that 
``it is desirable to make the electoral process within the United Kingdom as uniform as possible - the right to register in more than one place exists throughout the country.'' 
That is the position that I adhere to, and that was adhered to by the Select Committee, but I believe that multiple registration should not take place and is problematic. 
 I want to take action on a United Kingdom basis, not only in Northern Ireland. A procedure could be included in electoral law to cover the matter. A bad piece of legislation, the Local Government Finance Act 1988, introduced the poll tax. Under that, a person could register to pay his main poll tax payment for his sole or main place of residence. If that could be done for electoral law generally, it would be possible to allow only one electoral registration for the sole or main place of residence. The rolling register is allowed to roll quicker in England than in Northern Ireland, owing to extra problems there. It is possible for people to move from one area to another and back again 
 The question of students was raised. Students can be registered in one area and at the same time be registered in another. However, that is a much wider consideration than can be dealt with in terms of multiple registration. In any case, the chief electoral officer said that it was not a major problem in terms of the fraudulent use of votes in Northern Ireland. It is much more to do with another item that we are due to discuss, which relates to the issuing of the marked register.

Eddie McGrady: The debates on the two issues of multiple registration and multiple voting have become unduly complex. I remember expending quite a bit of energy in my younger days on the streets of Northern Ireland trying to achieve one man, one vote, which would now of course be one person, one vote, as time moves on. There has been much reference to and quotation of chief electoral officers and Select Committees. All of those pronouncements are simply expressions of opinion, unless those consulted were asked for a definitive legal interpretation. However, let me assure the Committee that on many occasions when I asked for definitive legal interpretations of the law on voting and registration, I did not get a correct answer from the then chief electoral officer. Consequently, I have no great confidence that the chief electoral office is the origin of all authority. In fact, at the last election, I was given grossly wrong information by the chief electoral officer. I had to challenge him, and he had to admit that he was wrong, so I have no problem with contradicting what has been said in the past by anybody.
 I also have no problem with adapting my attitudes to new facts and new times, which is what I think the Committee is about. The basic principle—it is common currency in Northern Ireland at the moment—is equality of esteem, which means that every person is equal before the law, whether it is the criminal law or the law on voting or registration. That leads on to the principle that must always be pursued—one person, one vote. Irrespective of a person's wealth, irrespective of where they reside or their station in life, we must treat all our citizens with the best equality that human endeavour can achieve. I have appended my name to amendment No. 9 to try to eradicate that element of multiple voting and penalise people quite severely for committing the illegal act of multiple voting. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I am quite prepared to support it. 
 Our debates show that multiple registration is a slightly more difficult issue, but on principle a person should register to vote only in one place. If an elector is qualified to register in more than one place, they should choose where they want to vote. As we have heard, and as I know from practice, there are circumstances where an elector can register for good and equal reasons in different electoral divisions, be they local government, parliamentary or European. 
 I pointed out some time ago—not in relation to this legislation or my amendment to it—that a person should have a space in which to indicate that they are registering at two different addresses, so that that is clearly brought to the attention of the electoral office. There should be a penalty for not providing that information. In addition, quite a simple administrative arrangement can be made, whereby a person who has dual registration must suggest before a given time of the election the address of registration that he or she wants to exercise, thereby negating his or her alternative option. It would be fairly simple and straightforward for the electoral office to administer that work. On that basic principle of parity of esteem and equality of citizenship—one person, one vote—I will support the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I rise to support new clause 8, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, and amendment No. 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. However, I have some concerns about amendment No. 8. The first of them—whether it refers to one parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom—may be less important than the others, but it needs to be clarified.
 I am sure that we all frequently grapple with the law on registration in our political lives, and it sometimes seems absurd to the layman. However, it is perfectly legal for someone to vote in two parliamentary by-elections held on the same day. As I understand matters, in Great Britain—certainly in England—it is possible for people to vote in two different local authorities in local government elections held on the same day. I am a little confused as to whether a local government area in Northern Ireland means a local authority or what we call a ward or county division. 
 It is clear that it is not possible in England for someone to vote twice in an election for one district, and amendment No. 9 would make that unlawful if not impossible in Northern Ireland. People can vote in elections for two different districts held on the same day, but cannot vote twice in an election for one district. Similarly, amendment No. 9 makes it unlawful for people to vote twice in a parliamentary general election, but not for them to vote in two parliamentary by-elections held on the same day. 
 It is tempting to head towards a ban on multiple registration altogether. It benefits some groups in the community unfairly, such as those fortunate enough to be able to afford a second home and to live in it as much as they live in the first. We are among those who benefit from that. It benefits students, who can register at home and at their place of study. It may be argued to disbenefit certain politicians in areas with high student populations or high numbers of holiday homes. 
 It is difficult, however, to say that multiple registration is wrong in Northern Ireland when it is permissible in Great Britain. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire suggested that it should be unlawful in Great Britain. That is another matter and requires another measure on another day. I support the Minister's view that we cannot have different qualifications for voting in different parts of the UK, which is why I find it hard to support amendment No. 8.

Lembit Öpik: I apologise to the Committee, but I have to leave to do something else, so I shall not be here for any vote. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are discussing matters of significant principle, as the Minister effectively pointed out? Can he explain why he judges the extent of the punishment proposed in new clause 8 to be proportionate to the offence?

Andrew Turner: I was not proposing to discuss that aspect of new clause 8, but it is an offence against electoral law, and such an offence has the potential to disturb the legitimate result of an election. In that regard, the punishment is proportionate.
 I fail to understand why the Minister resists new clause 8 so strongly.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman does not know whether the Minister is resisting or not. The Minister will make his own speech.

Andrew Turner: In that case, perhaps we may assume that the Minister, having refused to say whether he intends to resist new clause 8—although that would have saved the Committee some time—is going to resist it either strongly or weakly. A weak resistance from him may be approaching, but I will put in my resistance first.
 New clause 8 is a reasonable compromise. A ban on multiple registration would be unfair to electors in Northern Ireland as compared to their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the rest of the United Kingdom, it is easy to register twice and to cast one's vote twice, if one wishes to do so. 
 In the recent general election, which was held on the same day as county council elections on the Isle of Wight and in counties such as Surrey, a number of people were registered to vote in both those locations. One of those people was my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), although I am not claiming that what I am about to describe happened to her personally. Ballot papers could clearly be issued to people in both those locations on the same day. Believe it or not, it is possible to travel from the Isle of Wight to Surrey within the period during which the polling stations are open and so to claim one's vote in the county council elections in both places and to exercise both those votes legitimately. If one were physically present at a polling station on the Isle of Wight, one could say, ``I want a ballot paper because I want to vote for—or against—Andrew Turner.'' If one were physically present at a polling station in Surrey, one could say, ``I want a ballot paper for the county council elections, but I do not want you to issue me with one for the general election because I am not entitled to use it.'' 
 As for the postal vote, I know that the returning officer on the Isle of Wight required only one application for postal votes for all the elections that were held on that day—I am not sure whether that was the case in Surrey. One might receive one's ballot papers in Surrey, one might vote in the county council election and the general election and, additionally, one might receive through the post two ballot papers, one for the county council election and one for the general election on the Isle of Wight. Therefore, it was not possible to tell simply by checking the ballot papers that were issued whether people were likely to have voted twice. If postal ballot papers were issued, one would have to check whether those papers were returned before one could find out whether an individual had voted twice. 
 The result was that more general election ballot papers were not returned in the elections in certain wards on the Isle of Wight than county election ballot papers. I can assume only that that was because many electors were registered twice. 
 That is unfortunate on the Isle of Wight and unfortunate in Surrey, but it is not likely to change the result of the elections because there is not the level of organised deceit and malpractice that we know exists in Northern Ireland. [Interruption] The Minister mentions another political party, but I will not take him up on that as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is no longer present. There is organised deceit and corruption in elections in Northern Ireland, which I am pleased to say is not the case in Surrey or on the Isle of Wight. That is why the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate would achieve a reasonable compromise between the position in Northern Ireland and the position in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Des Browne: As I made clear in my intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the legitimate rights of voters in Northern Ireland from abuse. The purpose of preventing abuse in elections is to ensure that the result is a true reflection of the will of the voters who exercised their legitimate right. It was never my intention to remove any rights from voters in Northern Ireland. It is with great reluctance that we require legitimate voters there to produce identification or to satisfy other conditions in order to exercise those legitimate rights. I have no intention of allowing the Bill to become a vehicle to remove rights from the voters of Northern Ireland that are enjoyed by voters in the rest of the United Kingdom.
 That is my position on multiple registration and the law as it presently stands. If the Committee wishes, I am prepared to say what the law is and how it came to be like that, but I am not sure that that would help. The hon. Member for Belfast, East has broadly summarised, if not entirely accurately, the history of the law. The point of principle is whether, in protecting people's rights, we should take other rights from them. My view is that we should not.

Peter Robinson: The Minister is attempting a fine balance between the definition of a person's right to vote and the conditions that will be applied to them being allowed to vote. I am not sure which side of that argument the Minister might take on the right of people to vote by post, which is much more flexible and expensive in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland.

Des Browne: For reasons that the Committee has debated at length, and because of the problems in Northern Ireland, which have been explained by several hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, those restrictions have been put in place. Nevertheless, whatever people may have to do in order to exercise their vote, they still own the vote. I see a clear distinction between taking the right to vote away from people who presently enjoy it and putting in proportionate measures and checks and balances to ensure that the right to vote is not defeated by abuse or fraud. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East does not see that distinction, I cannot help him any further. I have the clear impression that almost all the other members of the Committee grasp the distinction. If not, we can debate it further.

Peter Robinson: I do not think that the Minister has grasped the point that I am making. People in Great Britain have the right to vote by post under certain circumstances, but people in Northern Ireland do not have the right to vote in the same circumstances. A distinction already exists on the right to vote—and that example is off the top of my head. Will the Minister reconsider his remarks about taking away the vote from those who already enjoy it? The reality is that they are not enjoying it in Northern Ireland. People cannot be lose something that they are presently not aware of and have not exercised.

Des Browne: I have listened for long enough to the hon. Gentleman, in private conversation and in debate in the House, speaking for everybody in Northern Ireland. I respect and accept that he genuinely believes that nobody knew that that was the position. However, I do not think that he can, with confidence, speak for everybody in saying so. I do not have the information about whether there is multiple registration in Northern Ireland and what people might have done. I do not have it because we do not have the technology to reveal it, although we are reaching a stage when we might have it shortly. However, I do not accept the bland assertion that nobody in Northern Ireland knew.
 It does not really help us to debate whether the evidence of the previous electoral officer in his memorandum to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee meant one thing or another. There are two interpretations: it could mean that which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire thinks it means, or it could mean what other people were urging upon him. That just adds to the confusion. 
 I cannot comment on what the present chief electoral officer or his staff might have said to the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for South Down, but I can tell the Committee unequivocally that the chief electoral officer understands the law on multiple registration of voting in local government elections in Northern Ireland. My position is that these amendments and new clauses would disadvantage the voters in Northern Ireland compared with those in the rest of the UK by removing their right to be registered at more than one address and by making it an offence to vote in more than one local government area. I acknowledge the potential for legitimate multiple registrations to translate into illegitimate votes. However, I do not regard that potential as a reason for singling out Northern Ireland and removing people's right to register more than once there, or for removing their right to vote more than once in local government elections. 
 Furthermore, part of the purpose of the Bill is to tackle the problem directly. It introduces requirements for additional information to be provided by those seeking registration. With the help of computer software, which the chief electoral officer is introducing into his office, it will be possible to use that information to identify people seeking to be registered in more than one place. It therefore seems unnecessary to require people to state that information on registration. The chief electoral officer will be able to check whether those who seek to be registered at more than one address are genuinely registered there anyway. Perhaps it would be appropriate now to deal with new clause 8. 
 That was the position that I held. I have listened to the debate. I am not entirely persuaded that we need to require people to answer the question posed in new clause 8 at the point of canvass. However, I am persuaded that the issue is worth considering further. I am advised that it does not require primary legislation and that it can be done through regulations. The debate between the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) covered the matter of an appropriate penalty. My concern is that if we amended the form to include a question about having previously registered or being registered at more than one address, there would have to be a sanction to ensure that people answered it and did not just ignore it. Some consideration should be given to the proportionality of the penalty for failure to answer that question properly. 
 I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: ``Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?'' Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value. If the hon. Member for Reigate is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I shall undertake to consider that possibility between now and Report stage. I shall consult with the parties in Northern Ireland, and with the chief electoral officer, and I shall come back with a clear position on Report. I am more persuaded now than I was before I listened to the debate. 
 I shall read an explanation of amendment No. 9. Perhaps hon. Members need to have it in front of them to understand the position. Paragraph 12A of schedule 9 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962—an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament—was inserted by the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1987 order. It states that it is an offence to vote as an elector more than once in the same district electoral area or in more than one district electoral area in the same district in an ordinary election. That helps me to understand the evidence of the previous chief electoral officer, but it might not help those who are listening to me. 
 Accordingly, I am advised that, apart from 13F(1)(a), the changes proposed in amendment No. 9 are already the law. [Interruption.] May I try to summarise my position without going through a rehearsal of the law? I resist all the amendments, but, in particular, those that seek to outlaw multiple voting in local government elections where it is at present lawful as a matter of principle. I do not accede to the argument that the voters of Northern Ireland should have fewer rights than those in the rest of the United Kingdom because there is a difficulty with fraud. 
 I turn now to the proposal that further information be obtained so that the chief electoral officer can check whether people are registered at more than one address and whether they have obeyed the law in parliamentary and local government elections. I now have an open, more positive mind than I did before the debate as regards extending the questions on the canvas form to include those such as appear in new clause 8. I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate, so that we have a clear position on Report.

Crispin Blunt: It would be extremely churlish of me to do anything other than welcome the Minister's remarks about new clause 8, and I will not press it to a vote, in the light of the undertakings that he has given.
 I have only one further argument in favour of his considering new clause 8 before we return to it on Report; it relates to the searches of the register to which he alluded. The Committee has decided not to include national insurance numbers on the registration form. The Minister said that it would be fairly straightforward to check the register to see whether there had been multiple registrations. However, people are likely—particularly if they want illegally to take advantage of multiple voting by effecting multiple registration—to register under their Irish and English names at different addresses. Even if the addresses are correct and they have a claim to them, the only factor in common will be the date of birth. Obviously, the signature will not be the same, because the name will be different. The chief electoral officer might well have insufficient data to carry out a computer search to check one registration against another. 
 If national insurance numbers were included, that problem would be dealt with, unless the numbers were fraudulent. As national insurance numbers are not included, that is another reason to consider new clause 8 positively. I am grateful for the Minister's undertakings.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has no power to investigate registers in the rest of the United Kingdom, his new clause would enable that information to be provided as well?

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I am certain that the Minister and his officials will have noted that, and will bear it in mind when they come to consider the new clause in detail and introduce any Government new clause on Report, which I hope the Opposition will be able to support.
 I return to multiple voting and amendment No. 9. The Minister's point about withdrawing rights is fairly marginal, but I accept that he is making a principled objection. On the basis of that, and being convinced of the merits of his arguments, I shall not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for South Down. However, I point out that the voting rights that the Minister said those would take away were voting rights that the chief electoral officer in 1997, after 17 years in post, did not believe that the people of Northern Ireland enjoyed. On my reading of the evidence given to the Select Committee, indeed they did not. The Minister's point was marginal, but if we get the register right, and have multiple registration reflected and known, as on the basis suggested in new clause 8, his points about amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would seem more reasonable.

Peter Robinson: I leave the historical context to one side, by indicating that I can, to some extent, accept the Minister's judgment that it is possible to interpret the memorandum from the former chief electoral officer in more than one way. However, that is only if one makes the assumption, as did the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, that he really intended to add the words ``in the same district'' to the end of the paragraph.

Harry Barnes: I think that the Select Committee interpreted that in the way that I said, because that influenced its recommendations, which the hon. Member for Belfast, East was involved in.

Peter Robinson: I do not agree. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing my argument about multiple voting with the issue of multiple registration. No restraint was applied to people on multiple registration. I am not making a case about that, but about multiple voting. I was a little surprised that the Minister indicated that he was unsure about what the present chief electoral officer might think about the law on that. I understood that the chief electoral officer had written to the Minister or to his officials to seek clarification about the Bill.

Des Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: I shall give way to the Minister in a moment, but I want to put my point in context. When I raised the issue with the chief electoral officer to see if he could give me the benefit of his wisdom, I was told that he was seeking advice from the Minister's Department.

Des Browne: I want to clarify what I said. I said that at present the chief electoral officer knows what the law is. I chose not to comment on any conversations that might have taken place between the hon. Member for Belfast, East and the chief electoral officer or anyone else. That is my position and I do not want it to be misinterpreted.

Peter Robinson: It may be best to leave the historical position behind. It is clear from what is now on the record that it was not a matter of common knowledge in the public houses and the women's institutes in Northern Ireland that people had a right to vote more than once. I speak for those in both the women's institutes and the public houses on that issue. I have the benefit of representing people who use both those facilities.
 On multiple registration, I do not believe that with rolling registration it is essential to have multiple registration if people can vote on only one occasion at an election. I listened to the Labour party's new principle that people with plenty of money and, therefore, plenty of houses should have the advantage of voting on more than one occasion. We have noted that new socialist principle, but I do not agree with it. I contend that it is proper for people to have only one vote in each election irrespective of their bank balances or assets. However, the hon. Member for South Down is an accountant and my best subject at college was mathematics. We can both work out what the impact would be if we pressed the amendment to a Division. We may rally our troops on a further occasion, but I have been given some dignity in withdrawing the amendment with the Minister's semi-assurance on new clause 8. That helps me to the extent that I honestly believe that the matter will come under pressure in the months and years ahead. Those who want to cast more votes than they are legally entitled to will use the legislation as a method for doing so. If new clause 8 were accepted, there would be a mechanism for tracking and monitoring what is happening. Perhaps the Minister would then think less unfavourably of those who urged him to take action on this occasion and he, or his successor if he has moved on to greater and better things, might consider an amendment at that stage. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Amess: Mr. Öpik was, unfortunately, unable to stay for the remainder of our proceedings, so I shall not call amendment No. 44.
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Activities of polling agents

`(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.(2) 
 (2) In rule 35 (questions to be put to voters), in paragraph (4), at the end, there is added ``; and no candidate's polling agent present in the polling station shall be provided with, gather or disseminate any information as to which elector or electors have or have not voted during the hours of polling''.'. 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Peter Robinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 3—Procedure on close of poll—
 `(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
 (2) In rule 43 (procedure on close of poll), after paragraph (2), there is inserted—
``(2A) The marked copies of the register of electors and of the list of proxies shall be returned to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and shall not be made available to any member of the public.''.'.
 New clause 7—General availability of list of persons who have voted— 
 `(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary election rules) is amended as follows. 
 (2) After rule 37 there is inserted— 
 ``37A. During the hours of polling the presiding officer shall maintain a list of those persons on the register who have voted and shall make the list available from time to time on request to a relevant candidate, election agent, or polling agent.''.'.

Peter Robinson: New clause 2 refers to the gathering of information and the interaction between political representatives in a polling station and the electoral officer's staff in that polling station. I should first point out that I have no emotional capital tied up in the precise wording of the new clause, and I am certain that the Minister could provide us with something much more appropriate. I am simply arguing for the general principle involved. It is well known that those with the best-organised machines in any election have a distinct advantage. Nowhere is that more clearly seen than in a large, military-style machine that is capable of taking information from a polling station and using it to bring in voters who have not voted.
 It is already an offence for anyone inside a polling station to provide those outside with information about who has, or has not, voted. However, in real life that happens, and in some constituencies it happens on a massive scale—to such an extent, in fact, that it is evident to those who work there that polling station information is being used systematically to get those who had not previously voted to fill in the gaps. I know that the Minister is earnest about this issue, and there is a general desire, and entitlement, for people to be able to enter a polling station on behalf of candidates and observe what is taking place. 
 It is not the intention of the new clause to take away such a right. I want political parties to retain the ability to observe what happens in a polling station. I want to draw the line, however, by stopping people marking down who has voted and who has not, and disseminating that information. If it were an offence to mark a register with such information, the task of the cheats would become very difficult indeed. In the light of mobile telephones and text messaging—and, indeed, the handing out of a straightforward piece of paper containing the numbers of those who have and have not voted—it is fairly easy for a major campaign team to get to work. That gives them an advantage over other political parties, and it takes away people's right not to vote at all or to have some privacy and confidentiality, at least, about whether they have voted. 
 I urge the Minister to look at this issue, which can have a major effect on the outcome of an election. It would not be difficult for him to incorporate such a measure into legislation, or for presiding officers to implement it. It is much harder to police the present system than it would be to implement a regulation requiring presiding officers to stop anyone taking down such information from the polling station electoral register. At the moment, such information can be recorded, and it is up to the presiding officer to check whether it is taken out of the polling station. 
 The Minister has again provided some help, in the form of the Northern Ireland Office survey, which points out that the dissemination of polling station information to those outside was causing considerable problems for presiding officers. Given that the report and the survey reveal a problem, I hope that the Minister—even if he does not accept the precise wording of the new clause—will accept that it should be dealt with so that information cannot be taken down and disseminated.

Eddie McGrady: I support the new clause, to which I originally contributed slightly different wording. My version has been amalgamated as though it were exactly the same as the new clause, which confuses me because my version read:
 ``The marked copies of the register of electors and of the list of proxies who have voted''. 
The three words ``who have voted'' are not included in the new clause, but that does not detract from its intentions. 
 The hon. Member for Belfast, East has described how election results can be changed or the fortunes of candidates altered by information leaving the polling station prior to the close of the poll, which has been almost ``traditional'' in Northern Ireland. That method has recently been stigmatised as a way in which certain results can be achieved, but that was always the case. However, it has become endemic and more organised for reasons that we have rehearsed on many occasions in Committee. The release of information from the polling station, which the new clause tries to prevent, is currently illegal. I was attempting to address an entirely different situation whereby the presiding officers' marked registers, which show who has or has not voted. They are returned to the electoral officer and are available to the public subsequent to the election, which is an entirely different set of circumstances.

Peter Robinson: It is new clause 3.

Eddie McGrady: If you say so.
 Certain groups of people are getting hold of the marked register after the election. They prepare for the next election by heavy canvassing of those who have not voted. That enables such people to use a psychological threat whereby no fewer than three or four people attend a voter's door saying, ``We note from the official records that you did not vote last time. We will know whether you vote this time. We will also know how you vote, and we will be back to visit you.''. That was common practice in my constituency during the previous Westminster and local government elections. That is enormous psychological pressure because if such people know whether an elector voted, then the supposition that they know how they voted can easily be inferred and believed. For that reason, in addition to the leakage of information from the polling station on the day of the poll, the f act that the official marked register of the vote at each polling station is available through the electoral office after the election is not in the interests of democracy. 
 As the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, however much political parties want all people to vote—especially for us, but that is another story—whether to do so is a democratic decision. I had a different intention that has happened to coincide with the wording of new clause 3. Again, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, if the Minister took on board the problem and came back with more accurate wording, I would be happy to consider it. Otherwise, the leakage of sensitive information, which can be done both officially and unofficially, worries me. Otherwise, the leakage of sensitive information, which can be done both officially and unofficially, worries me.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. At some point I have to move new clause 6. When will that be appropriate?

David Amess: After we have concluded this debate.

Crispin Blunt: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Amess. Several of us are new to our positions, and I apologise for not being clear about the precise procedure.
 I have considerable sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for South Down. However, as will be evident from new clause 7, I have come to a different conclusion about how the issue should be addressed, which I shall try to explain. The hon. Member for South Down discussed the use of the marked register and whether it should be released to the political parties for use in peacetime to identify who had not voted. He gave a graphic account of the intimidation or pressure to which people who traditionally have not been terribly interested in voting or the electoral process can be subjected. 
 To support the hon. Gentleman's point, one has only to look at what happened in West Tyrone, which Sinn Fein gained from the Ulster Unionist party at the last general election and where 2,012 proxy votes were granted. I wonder why there was that extraordinarily high number of proxy votes in one constituency—getting on for 10 times as many as most other constituencies and twice as many as any of the rest. Was it a product of Sinn Fein in this instance being able to use the marked register to identify people who did not vote and to say to them, ``If you can't be bothered to go to the polling station, we'll arrange for someone to do it for you''? That would of course be improper. The number of proxy votes in that constituency is a rather startling statistic. 
 I do not demur from the general position taken by the hon. Members who tabled new clauses 2 and 3—namely, that there is a problem. However, the difficulty is that one runs into the principle that, unless it cannot be avoided, things should not be done differently in Northern Ireland from how they are done in Great Britain. What will be done with the marked registers? What will be the activity at the polling station? I came to the conclusion that we should try to put all the political parties in Northern Ireland on as even a footing as possible. The number of thank you letters that we have to write after a general election makes me only too aware of the number of people—it can be hundreds—who are involved in telling at all the polling stations in a constituency. If one has a full polling day organisation, hundreds of one's supporters will be involved in getting out the vote. Quite a lot of that involves the exercise of telling at the polling stations to get the information on who has voted to pass back so as to identify supporters who have not voted and go and knock them up. 
 What concerns me about politics in Northern Ireland is that one party is better financed and better organised than all the rest. We can speculate on the reasons for that, but the political process should be as even as possible. Ironically, I have come to the same conclusion as that expressed by Sinn Fein in its evidence to the Select Committee: 
 ``In keeping with our view that the maximum freedom to vote should exist we also believe that relevant information from within the polling station should be made readily available to all political parties. In the course of the day party officials should be authorised to collate the names of those who have not cast their vote. This would facilitate party canvassers and tally clerks and ensure a greater participation by the electorate in the electoral process.'' 
 If a political party is well organised and has many people to put together a professional organisation, it can get its tellers outside the polling stations and ensure that the information is received from the polling station simply by having sufficient people on the ground to identify who has voted. However, another political party may not enjoy the same funding and professionalism. If the information continues to be available from the polling station—which I suspect is the Minister's position and is the principle to discuss, although the amendment is probing in order to open up debate—let us try to put the people competing in the election in as even a position as possible. There is the subterfuge of people listening to poll clerks or the presiding officer reading out voters' numbers as they enter the polling station and ticking lists inside the polling station. They are entitled to do that, but it can only be done if there is the organisation to have polling agents inside or tellers outside to take the volunteered information. If it were automatic that a representative of the candidate could collect the information from the polling station during the day, as new clause 7 would allow, the information would be freely available to all parties on the same basis because it would be collected and collated by the presiding officer and the poll clerks. 
 The other advantage is that there would be no need for tellers or polling agents to be based permanently inside or outside the polling station. It is clear from the research commissioned by the Northern Ireland Office from Research and Evaluation Services that a number of electors felt a degree of intimidation because of the party agents and tellers who were outside the polling stations. If we are to continue to allow marked registers to be given to parties and agents after the election—that is the key question—so that an organised party may take advantage of them, we should put the political parties on as even a footing as possible during the polling day and make information readily available in a form that can be used for each of the parties to get their votes out. It would be interesting to carry that out as a trial in Northern Ireland. 
 There are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland because there is a plethora of political parties. I do not know how many parties are represented in the Assembly because I have not counted them.

Eddie McGrady: Ten.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
 If the 10 parties contest an election with 20 tellers—two each—outside a polling station and a further 10 agents inside the polling station, the situation is one of total chaos. Therefore, the proposal has an administrative benefit because it would take people away from the polling station. 
 The spirit of the amendment is probing, and to allow discussion. If we cannot go down the principled route of removing the people's right to see the marked registers after the election, and limiting that in the manner proposed by the hon. Members for South Down and for Belfast, East—I accept that there is an issue to be addressed—perhaps the other way of doing it is, ironically, to do what I do: make the information more readily available on polling day so that the parties can compete in the election more evenly.

Des Browne: We should continue to prohibit the dissemination of information out of the polling station. For those reasons—I may cover this in more detail—I do not favour new clause 7 in any guise.

Crispin Blunt: I understand that the Minister wants to keep the prohibition, but it does not work: the information is going out of the polling stations, in particular, to parties that are sufficiently well-funded and organised to get it out.

Des Browne: I am at one with the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for South Down to the extent that I believe that it is better to interdict such behaviour inside the polling station, where there is some prospect of it being policed—it may be imperfectly policed at certain polling stations; I shall come to that in a moment—rather than giving information to the parties. If parties behave on individual doorsteps on polling day in the way that the hon. Member for South Down claims, I suspect that there is no prospect of policing such behaviour. However, there is a prospect of our protecting that information within the polling station.
 The hon. Member for Belfast, East and I disagree on whether we need to outlaw the provision of information to polling agents by polling clerks and providing officers. I do not think that there is any disagreement between the position adopted by me as a Minister and others on whether party representatives—polling agents, agents or candidates—should be entitled to go inside polling stations to observe how the poll is conducted. That seems a necessary part of democracy. The new clause contributes nothing new to eradicating the mischief—the transmission of information out of the polling station. It is more effective to focus the efforts of the chief electoral officer and his staff on ensuring, through the training of presiding officers and other measures, the enforcement of the existing ban. 
 I acknowledge the point of the hon. Member for Belfast, East that he is not thirled to the wording of the amendment. I am sure that he realises that prohibiting the provision of information to polling agents from polling clerks or presiding officers is unnecessary. From the available evidence, in the research or elsewhere, the problem does not seem to lie with election staff passing information to polling agents. The information is being obtained by polling agents recording information that is legitimately available as part of the electoral process. The passing of information from the clerk to the presiding officer or the assistant is part of the process of ensuring an open and democratic procedure. We cannot interdict that. 
 If we cannot stop information being passed in that way because it is necessary to ensure openness, and we cannot stop—as I believe we cannot—people who represent the parties from being in the polling stations, we need to concentrate our efforts on ensuring that they do not breach the law by passing that information out of the polling station. Although this might be a little out of order, new clause 7 is highly inadvisable against that objective, unless we get rid of the prohibition altogether, which I am not persuaded to do. New clause 7 would only encourage the flouting of the prohibition, but I recognise that the new clause was intended to be probing. 
 As the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, new clause 3 would mean that Northern Ireland procedure would run contrary to the position of the rest of the United Kingdom. I have already expressed how reluctant I am to do that, although I am persuaded to in certain circumstances. I am not convinced that political parties should be denied the information of the mapped register at the end of the poll. It is information that I, and I suspect other hon. Members, have used and, although my use of it in the west of Scotland does not translate to it having to be used in Northern Ireland, I have not been persuaded that there should be regional differences. I use it to identify people who said during canvassing that they will vote for me or for my party and to find out whether they have voted and whether there were any problems. In doing that, I use it in the same way as many other hon. Members have done, do and would like to continue to do. It is entirely legitimate. 
 The provision of the marked register, which is the true record of the number of people who voted, is necessary also so that parties can, if they wish to, assure themselves that the poll was conducted in a proper manner. To remove that right would be draconian. However, it is the Government's obligation that, as far as possible, it interdicts the transfer of the information available in the polling station to outside to be used for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) or for other purposes. I can tell that I have not persuaded the hon. Member for Belfast, East, but for the reasons I have mentioned I hope that the new clauses will be withdrawn.

Harry Barnes: I am unhappy about the general availability of marked registers. It is not healthy for political parties or Members of Parliament to have access to marked registers and know whether constituents they deal with voted or not. Although the Minister has mentioned arguments in favour of the marked register being available, it is a problem. There is also a difficulty with new clause 3 because it would mean that a marked register would not be made available in Northern Ireland, despite being available in Great Britain.
 There are special reasons for arguing that the marked register should not be supplied in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down mentioned cases of intimidation. The Select Committee's view, which unlike the laws of Medes and Persians can be moved away from by its members, was that 
``local knowledge and use of the marked-up Registers for previous elections . . . show the names of those who did not vote. The votes of such people can easily be stolen without trace.''
 There is difficulty in getting evidence of what takes place in Northern Ireland elections, but I have the impression that marked registers are widely used to discover who seldom or never votes. That is when personation can take place. On the other hand, the Bill will begin to tackle that problem of fraudulent vote because a photo identity card will be required. 
 The Select Committee did not go as far as recommending the non-availability of marked registers, but it asked the chief electoral officer to keep a close eye on the matter for the next five years and to report back on any problems. Northern Ireland has the extra problem of needing marked registers in certain circumstances because it is more likely that an electoral petition will emerge from Northern Ireland when the parties examine the details and find out that numbers of people have voted who are not entitled to. However, if the Bill is successful, it will remove that need. There are arguments for and against marked registers, and my disposition is to be unhappy about their provision generally throughout Great Britain, but I do not think that there are sufficient problems, given the new legislation, that require that they be removed from Northern Ireland. 
 I recommend the Home Office to consider seriously whether marked registers assist the operation of the democratic process. Certainly, our constituents would be aghast if they knew that marked registers were available. They would find it an intrusion into their civil liberties if the political parties could know, precisely and officially, who had voted and who had not. If people thought that that was the case, the view about intimidation that was referred to by the hon. Member for South Down would be held more widely, because they would think that if it were possible to know which people had voted it would also be possible to know whom those people has voted for. That misperception among people is a danger that should concern us.

Peter Robinson: Had I been wording new clause 7 today, I might, having listened to the Minister, have framed it differently. His point about information being available to the signed-in and valid representatives of political parties in a polling station is sound. For example, a polling agent might ask the presiding officer whether a person had said that they were Joe McDonald—or whatever the name might be—to determine whether personation had taken place. I can see circumstances in which it would be appropriate for them to have that information. I also recognise, as the Minister commented, that it is important that such information should not be disseminated beyond the polling station.
 If I were drawing up a new clause today, I would concentrate on the recording of that information. I have to ask the Committee, as I ask myself, what is the legitimate use of such information? If a mischief is being caused by it, we should make it an offence if no legitimate benefit can be derived from it. I cannot see that people within a polling station recording in their own register who has or who has not voted has any beneficial effect for the electoral process, nor is there any legitimate reason why they should have that information. Certainly there is no legitimate reason if marked registers are available to them after the election. If a representative from the Labour party with a red rosette knocked on my door and said, ``Mr. Robinson, you have not voted yet'' I may act differently from the way I would act if a couple of burly Sinn Feiners came to my door and informed me that they had knowledge that I had not been to the polls yet. The circumstances change the position.

Harry Barnes: Unfortunately, it could not be a member of the Labour party in Northern Ireland as the rules of the Labour party do not allow it. It is the only place in the world where a person could not be a member of the Labour party, which some of us think should change.

Shona McIsaac: Afghanistan?

Harry Barnes: Even in Afghanistan I believe it would be possible to register people in the party.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the position in Northern Ireland, but I am multiple registered in a constituency in London. That was in the past few weeks. It is a seat held by a Labour Member, so it is possible for that to occur. I will make sure that I vote at least once in the next council election here and in Northern Ireland.
 The issue is clear. The only benefit is for the purposes of carrying out an activity that the Committee would not consider legitimate. The Minister could therefore have gone a little further in agreeing that not only the dissemination, but the recording of that information, should be made an offence. However, even if I won a vote, which is an unlikely experience in this Committee, I recognise that in its existing terms the new clause would put inappropriate wording into the legislation. I will not therefore push it, but I may consider at a later stage putting it in the form that the Minister suggests. 
 I was remiss in not commenting on the second new clause in my name, which relates to marked registers, but thankfully the hon. Member for South Down helped me out. Here again, I must ask whether mischief is being caused by the publication of a marked register. What are the corresponding benefits that would make it worth while not to make the changes suggested in the amendment? I have not received much enlightenment. The Minister said that it would prove that the poll was conducted in a proper manner. I just wonder. How many of those who purchased the marked register in Northern Ireland did so to determine whether the poll had been conducted in a proper manner? We are fooling ourselves if we believe that is what is happening. 
 The marked register is undoubtedly being used for the purposes outlined fairly graphically by the hon. Member for South Down and again emphasised by the hon. Member for Reigate. It shows the people who tend not to come out to vote. They are the easy targets, because other people can take their vote as there is not much chance of them having been out earlier and voted. There is also less chance of being caught. Some other changes would make it more difficult for people to personate. Nevertheless there is no valid reason why political parties need to have the marked register. 
 I heard the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) tell the Minister from a sedentary position that she used the marked register. She did not say how she used it. I am sure that it was to encourage people who did not vote to do so the next time. I would not feel too intimidated if the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) came to my door to urge me to vote if I had not done so before. However, I might feel more intimidated if a fellow in a hood came to my door and told me that I had not voted last time, but I might like to consider doing so on the next occasion. 
 Although there is a strong case for the measure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Procedure on close of poll

`(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
 (2) In rule 43 (procedure on close of poll), after paragraph (2), there is inserted—
``(2A) The marked copies of the register of electors and of the list of proxies shall be returned to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and shall not be made available to any member of the public.''.'.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 6Voters: specified documents

New Clause 6 - Voters: specified documents

`(1) From 1st April 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to elections in Northern Ireland, imported into schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c.2), is amended in accordance with sub-section (2).
 (2) Sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) are omitted and the following are inserted:
``(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle;
(b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Government of the Republic of Ireland;
(c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development;
(d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act.''.'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Des Browne: I am mindful that the hon. Members present may be the only people in Parliament who are still working, and I am anxious not to detain them any longer than necessary. However, it would be remiss of me to allow the proceedings to close without saying a few words—and they will be very few.
 On behalf of the Committee, I thank you, Mr. Amess, for the humorous and helpful manner in which you have presided over the proceedings. I also thank the people who have assisted you, and Mr. Hood. The Committee is grateful to those who have recorded the proceedings and guided hon. Members in relation to procedure. 
 I also wish to record my appreciation of the manner in which the debate has been conducted, especially as it dealt with a complex issue. That has been of considerable assistance. All hon. Members will leave the Committee better informed. 
 I was glad that I was present on the one occasion when the hon. Member for Belfast, East had the opportunity to say no, but was the only person in the Committee to say aye. I look forward to re-engaging on these issues on the Floor of the House in the not too distant future.

Crispin Blunt: I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks and express gratitude to him for the way in which he conducted proceedings. I hope that he continues in that vein when the Bill is on Report and Third Reading. I am sorry that we are here at a quarter to seven. If the majority had been persuaded by my timetable motion, we would by now be well home.

Eddie McGrady: I also thank you, Mr. Amess, and all your staff for the help that has been provided to me and my party during our consideration of the Bill. I thank the Minister and his predecessors and those who are here from Northern Ireland for their help in formulating amendments, which I found confusing even after they were formulated—but that is another story. I thank all the members of the Committee for their participation and their kindness to me during the debate.

Peter Robinson: Not as a matter of form but as a genuine desire, I express my thanks to you, Mr. Amess, and to Mr. Hood in his absence, for your excellent chairmanship of the Committee. I, too, thank the Minister and all his officials for their assistance over the period leading up to our Committee sittings and for the information with which they provided us during those four sittings. The Minister has taught us well; I am not sure whether that will be altogether to his advantage when the next stage of the Bill reaches the Chamber, as we will go there better informed as to his position on the issues and as to the factual position—if, indeed, there is a difference between the two.

David Amess: I thank hon. Members for their kind and generous remarks. I thank the Committee for its indulgence as I fluffed my lines on many occasions, and for keeping in good order. I thank all the staff but, most of all, I thank our Clerk for his wisdom and guidance.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.